Another Day of Character Assassination

I really can't find any nicer way of putting it. There seemed to be only two primary topics that the democrats continuously hammered at, abortion and CAP.

The discussion of CAP was disgusting. Repeated attempts to paint Alito as a racist or bigot by mere association with a group whose magazine printed articles on the topic was foolish. Especially when that magazine printed articles that were known not to express the views of the editorial staff. Something that most magazines and newspapers do. Ted the Hutt's continual prattling on the subject was fascinating. Especially about the records from William Rusher. (Former head of CAP) Apparently Kennedy and his staff failed to note that a NYTimes reporter did a piece in November on Rusher's documents and CAP and found nothing on Alito. Or maybe he did know that and just is looking to delay and push more innuendo.

The day's most sizzling exchanges involved Alito's assertion, in the same job application, that he had belonged to Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that at that time had rallied conservatives and drawn considerable public notice.

Alito told the committee he does not remember joining the now-defunct group -- founded in 1972, the year he graduated from Princeton University -- and does not know anything about it. Democrats challenged him sharply, wondering aloud if he used the club to impress Reagan conservatives but now wants to distance himself from its outspoken opposition to efforts that brought more women and minorities to Princeton.

The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), said Alito's forgetfulness seemed too convenient. "If he didn't know what they stood for, he had to be about the only person in America who didn't know what they stood for," Leahy said.

Well what do you know. Leahy has perfect recall of all topics that occurred during his lifetime. Can you honestly state that you can remember all minor groups you were associated with in college and even recall all the controversy that may have been related with them? I'd never heard of CAP until this came up, and I'd say Leahy has finally showed his colors. I filled out applications 20 years ago that I can't recall what I put down. I'm certain I could look at them and not recall some of the entries on them. Especially if they were trivial. You don't want to believe him on his memory on this topic, fine, but it still doesn't make him a racist.

The abortion issue is still the top though. And I'm amazed at the complete failure to have any respect for the nominee's right not to answer on a topic that could come before the court. Apparently most of the senators missed that there is an abortion rights case presently before the court.

Yesterday, Alito said that Roe must be treated with respect because it has been reaffirmed by the high court several times in the past three decades.

But when Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) peppered Alito with questions about whether the ruling is "the settled law of the land," the nominee responded: "If 'settled' means that it can't be reexamined, then that's one thing. If 'settled' means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect . . . then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis." Stare decisis is a legal principle that, in Latin, means "to stand by that which is decided."

During Roberts's confirmation hearings, he, too, was reluctant to disclose how he would vote if asked to overturn Roe . But during the 2003 hearing on his nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he had said he viewed the ruling as settled law.

And during Roberts's hearings to become the nation's chief justice, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) had asked, "Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge or settled beyond that?" Roberts replied: "Well, beyond that, it's settled as a precedent of the court."

After his exchange with Alito yesterday, Durbin told reporters: "Sam Alito would not use those same words. It really, I'm afraid, leaves open the possibility that we are considering the nomination of a justice who will change 30 years of law in this country, a dramatic change to the American society."

By Durbin's standards Brown v. Board of Education would not be allowed to be overturned. The separate but equal status quo had been "settled law" by the democrat's definition for more time than has Roe v. Wade. It doesn't mean that the court can't reconsider a case. Please note that this argument isn't about whether abortion should be legal, but about whether precedent can or can't be over turned. (Just so those who are flipping out can calm down and use their brains before flaming me in comments.)

Of course, Tom Coburn had an interesting point that Senator Durbin seems to believe he shouldn't be held accountable too.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) suggested that Durbin is ill-suited to challenge Alito's views on abortion because Durbin once opposed abortion rights and changed his mind.

Then there is Schumer, entering on his usual slime trail.

Alito told several senators that he felt constrained from saying whether he regards Roe as settled because abortion remains a live issue in the courts. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) reminded Alito that he has willingly said other areas of the law were settled even though they remain in play and that, in a 1985 application for a promotion in the Reagan administration's Justice Department, he had written he did not believe the Constitution protects the right to an abortion.

You think maybe Alito could actually have come to a different opinion in 20 years? Maybe his views on how a judge makes a decision are different than how a lawyer does? No, Schumer is too much a stalwart of fairness and truth to play such silly political games.

I did find the exchange around immigration interesting though.

Later, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) said that, as an appeals court judge, Alito had seldom sided with immigrants who were trying to win asylum or block deportation. Alito replied that he was following Congress's clear-cut laws on immigration policy.

"My role is not to substitute my judgment for that of the immigration judge," he said. "My job is to say, 'Could a reasonable person have reached the conclusion that the immigration judge did?' "

Excellent answer. But then, that's not the point that Kohl was trying to make. Remember, according to the democratic song book, Alito is a racist.

I must say, that this hearing really has shown senatorial politics at a real low. The politely phrased incivility is astounding. Can anyone even remotely compare the hearings of the Clinton era appointees with these hearings? Sadly, I believe this will cause these types of hearings to become less and less civil, irrespective of the party in power.